I can't wait for the Olympics to begin on Friday night. I'm excited for the obvious reasons, but I'm also ready to stop hearing all of the doomsday scenarios about how Rio's going to be this massive failure. The same thing happens before every Olympics, and every time the host country manages to pull it off. I don't expect these Games to be any different.
A lot of the criticism has been directed at the IOC for choosing Brazil in the first place. In their defense, though, when Rio was chosen as the host city seven years ago, they couldn't have predicted what would happen to the Brazilian economy. The Brazilian economy was strong in 2009, and there was no reason to think that taking the Olympics to South America for the first time wasn't worth the risk (which it was, by the way).
In response to all of the negative backlash regarding the selection of Rio, it's been suggested that the IOC will go with the safe choice in upcoming host city elections. That's why Tokyo beat Istanbul (by the way, Tokyo hasn't started rebuilding its Olympic Stadium yet, and it's not expected to be ready until December 2019) and why Beijing is getting a Winter Olympics despite the fact that "winter" is an arbitrary term in that part of China. I do agree that the IOC will be a little more cautious, at least in the near future. The race for 2024 was already between Los Angeles and Paris, and I don't expect that to change.
Experts have also predicted that the rush to get to Africa, the last remaining continent, has been calmed. South Africa's probably the only African country that can handle hosting an Olympics economically anyway, so it's really up to them when they want to even take the chance. The first Olympics in a Muslim country is probably on hold now, too. But Istanbul's bids keep getting better and better, and it seems inevitable that Istanbul will eventually host.
But, among all the articles I've read with their "solutions" for how to "fix" the Olympics in recent days, the suggestion that delaying the inevitable trips to Africa and the Arab world over safer alternatives are the only things I agree with. In fact, most of the ideas put forth in those articles were downright stupid.
The article that I found the dumbest (by a Dartmouth professor no less) implied that the Olympics are becoming too expensive for a single host city. The solution offered? Hold the Olympics all over the world! Seriously. That was this guy's suggestion. To have each sport in a different city, and not necessarily on the same continent. (If he'd said pick a host country instead of a host city, I wouldn't be so completely dismissive of this idea.) His argument for why did have some logic to it, but having all the sports together in the same place is kind of the point of the Olympics. They already have competitions in the different sports all over the world. Those are called World Championships.
One of the other obvious flaws of this plan is the Opening Ceremony. He suggested that the athletes could all simply fly into one city for the Opening Ceremony, then disperse for the different events. OK, so where do you hold the ceremony then? And what athlete in his right mind is going to fly somewhere just to march in the Opening Ceremony, only to immediately fly somewhere else (who knows how far away) for their competition? A lot of swimmers and gymnasts that compete on the first weekend skip the Opening Ceremony already.
That's still better than another brilliant solution to deal with the costs associated with hosting the Olympics. That's the oft-proposed idea of having a permanent host city. That way you don't have a different city spending millions to build venues that they'll only use for two weeks every four years. Olympia is the destination brought up most frequently, for obvious reasons. (Apparently the Greek economic issues aren't a problem for these advocates. Although, that's still better than the idea of permanently holding the Winter Olympics in Antarctica, which, in addition to being literally the furthest place on Earth for much of the world's population, has a pretty inhospitable climate year--round.)
While the Ancient Olympics were always held at Olympia, a permanent site for the modern Games goes against the very ideals established by Baron Pierre de Coubertin. When he revived the Olympics in 1894, he made it clear that he didn't want that. An international event is supposed to be held all over the world. That universality has always been a trademark. That's one of the reasons this year's Olympics are in Rio de Janeiro. They've never been to South America before.
Logistically, a permanent host city wouldn't work. Where would that permanent site be? Who would be in charge of organizing the Games? Where would the money come from? And, frankly, the novelty would wear off if athletes were going the same place every four years. Each Olympics gets a good part of its identity from its host city. That would definitely be lost with a permanent host.
Then there's the article that didn't have a ridiculous "solution." Unlike the others, it wasn't an apocalyptic lament on the death of the Olympic Movement. It was an article that came out on the anniversary of the 1984 Opening Ceremony. The Olympic Movement was in a bit of a crisis back then. Things were so bad that LA was the only bidder for the 1984 Games, which gave them the power to control some things, namely using existing venues and privately financing the Games. LA didn't just save the Olympic Movement, it established a model that Olympic hosts continue to use.
Wouldn't it be crazy if things come full circle and LA "saves" the Olympic Movement again 40 years later? That's the moral of the story here. Everyone thinks the model is broken because of Sochi's price tag, Rio's problems, and the nightmare that was the bidding for 2022. It's not broken. People just need their faith back. Maybe 16 successful days in one of the most picturesque cities on the planet will help restore some of that faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment